NOTES. 1) M”A and BA”N. Oros and Keilim. 2) Tahara, lower than Kedusha. 3) Question about Neshamos coming from Ohr. Page 472-3, NEW SV p. 522-3.

Oisiyos of Machshava and Dibbur and then Dibur ShebiMachshava and Machshava ShebiDibur. How all this relates to Neshamos in Z”A and Malchus and to Malachim in Z”A and Malchus. Page 470 ff. NEW SV p. 519 ff.

Back to the earlier idea: Neshamos Yisroel have a shoresh in Atzilus (Z”A, Ihu vi Chayohi Vigarmohi Chad) not only in Kisei HaKavod. Explanation: Hishtalshelus happens because Neshamos are mushrash [chakuk] in Atzmus. Page 468-70, NEW SV p. 617-10.

Cont. Tzimtzum HaRishon’s second function is to remove the Ein Sof. Its return is through a BeKiah, so that it comes as a new “Mehus” yet it is (on the other hand) meAin Hamaor and created biderech kiruv. But at least its a Mikor. Page 465-6, 467-8. NEW SV p. 612-3, 615-17.

Tzimtzum HaRishon, the whole process. The Tzimtzum before Tzimtzum Harishon, that affects “Ohr HaMair” in which the first tzimtzum occurs. The Tzimtzum’s dual affect On the Kelim (Reshimu) to become something separate from the Ohr; The Ohr is Bittulled in Atzmus and must be “Bokea” (break through) the Tzimtzum and thus comes as a new…

See next maamar – Panim B’Panim

See next Maamar – Panim B’Panim

Though Ohr is different from Maor in that it is a Metzius Nimtza, but it can’t (yet) be a Makor because A. That would make creating it a Peula (or: Hispaalus) in Atzmus and Shanisi, B. Creation wouldn’t be gradual, C. It wouldn’t be Ohr (MeAin HaMaor). Page 464-5. NEW SV p. 611-12.

We can’t know that He’s Maor, we can’t even know that He’s also maor, as he is Bilti Metzius Nimtza. Page 463-4. NEW SV p. 610-11.

Explaining the two opposites in Ohr Ein Sof, 1) Meain HaMaor, 2) We know nothing of the Essence from the Ohr, using Nefesh and Chayos as a Mashal. But this Mashal is only partially consistent with the nimshal. Page 463. NEW SV p. 610.